UK Man Arrested And Banned From Airport For Twitter Joke About Blowing Up An Airport
from the careful-who-you-joke-with dept
A few weeks ago, I was flying with my wife somewhere, and as we passed through security, a TSA agency took my wife's shoes and asked if he could run a separate test on them. A little while later, he came back and asked if she had another pair of shoes, saying that hers had "failed the test." It was around 5am, and neither of us were completely awake and we were both really confused, and trying to figure out how her shoes could have failed any sort of test (could she have stepped in some sort of mud that set off a test?!?) or if she had packed another pair of shoes, when the TSA guy started laughing, saying he was just joking and "you were supposed to protest!" Apparently, it was all a big joke. It wasn't that funny. And, of course, we've been told over and over again that this kind of joking is only allowed to go in one direction.Krubuntu points us to the news of a guy in the UK who found himself arrested and banned for life from an airport after posting a message on Twitter that read: "Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" This was in response to the airport closing due to snow, and the guy realizing he was supposed to fly from there a week later. Now, clearly, this was an ill-advised Twitter message. And, at the very least, I don't begrudge police from at least doing a quick check to make sure that it wasn't serious, but to then arrest him under the Terror Act, interrogate him for seven hours, threaten him with further charges and ban him for life from the airport? At some point you have to think that the response has gone too far as well. Yes, the post was in poor taste, but at some point law enforcement people should recognize when it was just a frustrated person making an ill-advised joke and move on.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airport security, joking, terrorism, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Signed,
Also Useless in the Morning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assisting terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assisting terrorists
So, ask again--who's spreading fear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT??!!
Hell, you handled it a lot better than I would have. My response to the above would have been, "Well, sir, it's hard to protest in an animated fashion when I've caked my boxer shorts in plastic explosives...."
But be honest, how hard would you have laughed when a brief shot of me in full Dark Helmet gear kneeling on a prayer rug in the yard in Gitmo got out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT??!!
But they are protecting us from the terrorists.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT??!!
He then told me I wouldn't be able to fly that day. When I looked confused, he told me he was joking.
And my thought was: I am not allowed to make jokes here, then you shouldn't be allowed to make jokes here either.
As I thought about it later, had I gone ballistic, they would have arrested me. But when it became clear I went ballistic over his joke - he would have been in a fair amount of trouble too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT??!!
I was on a flight out of Vegas CES this month, just after the underpants incident, and the guy behind me was an infrequent flyer who protested having to remove his shoes.
The airport was dead, so there were few around, but the TSA woman got a little snippy with him, he complied...no problem. I silently observed, for fear I attract unwanted attention.
But then the TSA woman started off on a big speech for all nearby to hear about how any inconvenience is worth it and "If I'm getting on a plane, the ONLY thing that matters is security. There is NO amount of inconvenience that matters more than my safety..."
Suffice to say I radically disagree. I, unlike she, like to perform cost/benefit analyses on all aspects of life. There IS an amount of inconvenience that goes to far, and there IS a point where the marginal safety benefit isn't worth the price. It's not just theoretical, either: I crossed the cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I refer you to your previous post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appaling
No, one shouldn't protest. Protesting leads to body cavity searches, which leads to suffering. That is the path to the dark side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should probably clarify a couple of other points. First, the police don't actually have the final say in whether he gets charged; they have to refer it upwards to a civil service organisation called the Crown Prosecution Service, whose job is (among other things) to assess the likelihood of a successful conviction if charges are brought. I wouldn't bet much on them running with it.
Secondly, banning him from the airport isn't something the police can do without an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, which is basically a kind of restraining order for habitual petty crooks. Since I assume the Independent would have seen fit to mention it if he got slapped with one of those, I suspect this came from Robin Hood Airport's owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The ban will probably disappear once this all blows over, though; unless he's actually found guilty, banning him is probably a violation of some part of the Human Rights Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"well within their rights to ban him"
"banning him is probably a violation of...Human Rights Act"
Did you change your mind mid post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the airport is privately owned, and the owners are the ones banning this ninny? I say we steal that strip and give it back to the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This country scares me more and more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's really frustrating is the people who post on the Internet, angry that the Xmas guy got through and almost blew up a plane and they demand more security. Then you get a guy posting on Twitter that he's going to blow up an entire airport. This man is then arrested - the requested/demanded security increase is supplied. Then the Internet posters say this was clearly a joke and that it's stupid to have people being arrested for nothing.
I am thrilled this guy got arrested, there's no reason to be joking about blowing up a god damn airport in 2010.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as I can tell, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's over boys, the terrorists have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wakes
> in America, this guy is now posting 'jokes' about blowing up a
> whole airport?
What if he joked about blowing up the whole *world*? That's an even bigger bomb, so maybe he should be banned from everywhere. At some point common sense has to enter into it.
And I'm tired of every new restriction on freedom and gross governmental overreach being justified with introductory phrase, "In the wake of..."
Seems like as long as we're in the "wake" of something, no amount of imposition on liberty is inappropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security
> through and almost blew up a plane and they demand more security
No, we don't demand more security. We demand *better* security. The difference is subtle, I know, but see if you can suss it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy failed the IQ test...
I would be interested in knowing how his twitter message came to the authorities attention though. Who reported it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
We don't need body scanners...but we'd rather just throw money at the problem, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The guy failed the IQ test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I honestly didn't think he was a terrorist b/c I didn't think there was a terrorist stupid enough to tweet their plans a week in advance.
I do find it amusing though. He posted the msg a week before his flight, so that would be Jan 8th. They arrested him on Jan 13th. Nice to let everyone know they have about a 5 day window....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the ban too is a bad joke...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But are we safer?
I can understand him talking to the fellow, but it shouldn't be against the law to make statements on tweeter. In fact, they should have kept the fact that they watch tweeter secret!
Of course, there isn't any evidence that any terrorist would tweet about an action prior to the attempt. If the set of terrorists tipping off police via tweeter is already known to be null, what is being accomplished here?
It is like yelling "WE ARE STAKING OUT TWEETER! Terrorists! Don't Tweet or we will catch you!!!"
How does that make us safer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But are we safer?
but yeah. it's dumb. we know this.
sometimes i wonder if getting elected, appointed, or otherwise acquire any position of authority by any non-disreputable means, requires some sort of damaging brain surgery as part of the process...
(the above statement is fairly broad, but the exceptions seem to be extensive And irregular, so I'm just gonna leave it :) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he should have paid the $1.99...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe he should have paid the $1.99...
When they first came out, I thought emoticons were the dumbest things I ever saw...then I had a boss who read into emails and IM's whatever her personal mood of the day was. I was even sent to human resources for a corrective interview regarding the tone of my emails when all they were was statements of fact regarding department production and due dates.
How can you tell the intent or the frame-of-mind of the person in a text post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Faulkers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im right here terrorist blow me up already
AND that my friends is how you defeat terrorism. IF you go around worrying its not healthy. YOU will get creepy yourself withdrawn and ya know what....make dumb idiot laws that never catch a single terrorist.
bush called hackers terrorists one day and the next i hacked the talibans news website.
then he recanted and said "ok hackers aren't terrorists ...but please dont do that we need to see what they have there"
thats how stupid bush is
ok osama lets put detailed plans of the next attack on a website?
thats what ran the american govt for 8 years
OMFG
thats the truth of it
your Americans are daft utterly devoid of intellect and over-react to everything
its sad sick and needs to stop.
SO what do you do?
you elect obama who brings mister hollywood with him to terrorize us all some more
like 8 years a war then 8 more of hollywood terror
FUCK YOU AMERICA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: im right here terrorist blow me up already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: im right here terrorist blow me up already
Especially when there seems to be a meaningful, if possibly irrelevant and nicely hidden, point to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banning someone for a threat
In the 1920's (thereabouts) a man, as a joke(?), went into a crowded theater and yelled "FIRE!". Since there had been a very devastating fire in another theater shortly before, the patrons panicked, and several were killed.
Now, this "blowing up an airport" may not be as serious; probably isn't, but it is similar - bad jokes can kill, and should be discouraged (and "bad boy" doesn't work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]